What a world, what a world . . .

OK, I watched MOST of the presidential debates in New Hampshire last night. I caught about half of the republican debate and all of the democratic one. I am an independent voter. I lean left on some issues and right on others. Here's what I thought:

1.) Can Romney and McCain please stop monopolizing our time by arguing with one another and simply address the issues? I mean, we have some bigger fish to fry right now as a country than these guys' wounded pride. I was very disappointed that they both allowed their little tiff to suck up valuable debate time on NATIONAL TELEVISION, a bully pulpit they should have been using to talk to us about what the heck they think we should do do dig out of the messes we're in.

2.) Huckabee came off VERY well, I thought. If he didn't hold views that were opposed to many of mine, I would consider voting for him. No wonder he's become the guy to beat on the republican side.

3.) Obama is sharp as a tack. He knows what the American people are thinking, and he's eloquent enough to express it well. His litany of what's on our minds was powerful (though it lost its impact as he began to use it over and over again). But knowing/talking and doing something about it (as Clinton pointed out) are two different things.

4.) Does anybody besides me think that Obama and Edwards had drinks the night before and decided that, regardless of who got the nomination, they'd choose each other as their running mate? It was VERY chummy on the left side of the table, KWIM? And that tag team they did on HIllary was uncool. (Though I did note that the dirtiest part of the democratic debate came off squeaky-clean when compared with the republicans.)

5.) I had such high hopes for Richardson. He tracks my own views more closely than any other candidate. BUT he is not a persuasive public speaker. And he kept going off onto tangents, instead of getting back to the initial question(s). Not good, and I don't think he stands a chance unless he can do a complete 180 on that.

6.) Charlie hit it right on the head when he said that people appreciate Hillary's experience (and I totally do), but they don't LIKE her (and I totally don't). I guess that shouldn't matter, but think about this: whoever we elect, we've got to listen to them for the next four years. And so does the rest of the free world. (Do we really want another person who is just going to annoy us? I'm ready to be able to turn my TV on without fear again.)

Also, this person has got to talk people into doing what he/she wants them to do. And no matter what anyone says, we all know that people want to do things for the people they LIKE. Likability can galvanize action on the part of the message recipient. So if people don't like Hillary, it's going to be harder for her to persuade them to do what needs to be done. Just my 2 cents.

7.) Change this, change that, blah, blah, blah. Every candidate campaigns saying that he represents change. This has come to mean nothing to me. What I want to know (and Clinton verbalized this well) is, "What are you going to DO?" I agree with her on this point - while words are all well and good, it is ACTIONS that matter when the chips are down. Words are only a TOOL to get you where you are going. They are not an end, but rather a means to an end.

What scares me about the republicans - Romney is someone I would NOT like to see as president. I neither like him nor agree with him. Huckabee, while I can completely respect him, does not share my beliefs. Thompson - eh. Some remarkably intelligent things came out of Ron Paul's mouth, but I don't think he'll get the nomination. Guliani had some good ideas, too, but he let himself get caught up in Romney's immigration fire and brimstone. McCain, who I had such high hopes for at one time, might be the lesser of all evils.

What scares me about the democrats - Obama doesn't have enough experience, a very real issue. Edwards seems to be playing the wide-eyed southern boy card, and I find it a bit insulting. (I mean, who does he think I am?) Clinton is awfully prickly and veers toward socialization (scary). Richardson can't seem to stay on topic, which makes me doubt his mental acuity. Overall, their approaches to both healthcare and immigration worry me. I mean, everything the government touches gets more than a little screwed-up. Do we really WANT them more involved in healthcare? And the immigration issue is another sore spot for me, probably because my father immigrated to this country LEGALLY. I was shocked to learn that when illegal aliens were arrested on criminal charges, they weren't deported. Wha . . . ? So you're telling me they sneaked into the country, and then instead of contributing, they robbed folks? And we DON'T put them back on the first boat home? If that's the case, we deserve what we get.

Anyway, I will be following subsequent debates and hoping for the best. I know it's early in the process (Lord, help us all.), but the premise is this: by the time the primaries get to Mississippi, we're pretty much down to two candidates anyway. Most everyone else has dropped out. So the only way for me to effect any meaningful influence is to pick some likely candidates now and start donating/talking to folks about them. With this strategy, I improve the odds that at least ONE of the yahoos on the ballot that I finally get to vote for is someone I can stomach.

Comments